HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The Business of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The Business of Hockey Discuss the financial and business aspects of the NHL. Topics may include the CBA, work stoppages, broadcast contracts, franchise sales, NHL revenues, relocation and expansion.

Contraction a necessary evil for survival of NHL says economist

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-13-2012, 12:36 PM
  #401
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
And that's exactly what Atlanta had. A mediocre team with some likeability, yet when it was time for one of the locals to step up and buy the team, they all walked away.

Seems to me the people writing the cheques in Atlanta feel differently about the prospects of having a team there.
Nowhere to play in Atlanta.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 12:41 PM
  #402
DuklaNation
Registered User
 
DuklaNation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 2,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
And again you miss the point. [Mod]

It's not about whether Atlanta was succeeding. Any dope could see it wasn't. The point is that the upside if Atlanta did succeed is worth far more than the difference between whever Winnipeg makes and the money Atlanta was losing. If there was a team the NHL should have Phoenixed, it was the Thrashers.

Heck, they really should consider moving the Coyotes to Atlanta. A solid team in that market could do a lot of good. And I doubt the players would complain too loudly.
Atlanta is a different type of market. Even the Hawks have problems getting fans in the seats. Unless you have consistent success, it would likely struggle.


Last edited by Killion: 12-13-2012 at 12:45 PM. Reason: qtd del...
DuklaNation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 12:45 PM
  #403
cbcwpg
Registered User
 
cbcwpg's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Between the Pipes
Country: United Nations
Posts: 7,581
vCash: 500
Back to contraction.

Forbes is also on the contraction bandwagon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...e-contraction/

Unfortunately, trimming back player salaries from 57% of revenue to 50% won’t solve the fundamental problem. Neither will throwing a bit more of the New York Rangers’ or Montreal Canadiens’ money to the St. Louis Blues and Florida Panthers. That’s because the fundamental problem is this: the NHL has 30 teams when it should have 20 teams. Time to start chopping.

“You’ve got almost no centralized revenue to work with,” says Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who has written extensively about sports economics, about the NHL’s lack of a significant national television package. “There is probably no way to make the bottom of the league viable. Even if salaries were zero, some still couldn’t cover their other costs.”

cbcwpg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:07 PM
  #404
jigglysquishy
Registered User
 
jigglysquishy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,703
vCash: 500
I think the logical fallacy is that a larger, US dominated game is beneficial. It most certainly is not. I wouldmuch rather the NHL stagnate at $3bn than become another Canadian free entity.

jigglysquishy is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:13 PM
  #405
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Back to contraction.

Forbes is also on the contraction bandwagon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...e-contraction/

Unfortunately, trimming back player salaries from 57% of revenue to 50% won’t solve the fundamental problem. Neither will throwing a bit more of the New York Rangers’ or Montreal Canadiens’ money to the St. Louis Blues and Florida Panthers. That’s because the fundamental problem is this: the NHL has 30 teams when it should have 20 teams. Time to start chopping.

“You’ve got almost no centralized revenue to work with,” says Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who has written extensively about sports economics, about the NHL’s lack of a significant national television package. “There is probably no way to make the bottom of the league viable. Even if salaries were zero, some still couldn’t cover their other costs.”
This is absurd. Name the teams that can't cover nonsalary operating expenses.

Apparently being a Forbes columnist doesn't render you immune from having an idiotic opinion.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:26 PM
  #406
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
Not true from the perspective I'm talking about.

You need to hit the media where it lives. More of the media lives in Atlanta than lives in New England or the Bay Area. Purely from a HRR standpoint yes, those other three markets outrank, but not from a media standpoint. Washington's never been a media-critical place to make a stand from a sports standpoint, but Atlanta has since the day Ted Turner used his media empire to make the Braves a national team. You absolutely need a presence in that town, and to hope that ownership eventually figures out how to make it there.

Put it this way. You'd be surprised how many marketing decisions are made by media companies based at least partly on the personal, anecdotal experience of their own executives. It tends to be the tiebreaker in any close call for obvious reasons. If those executives have no chance of watching a local NHL game, but can watch MLB, NBA and NFL at will, there's no way the NHL can sell itself to that company as a rival of the NBA, MLB and NFL. You basically take a series of competitors to bid for The Big National Media Deal, right off the board if you don't have a presence in towns where the media types gather.

Even a mediocre Atlanta team with at least some likeability has a chance to put the sport on the map of executive boardrooms of the media companies that HQ in the town it plays in. That's pure money, and walking away from it in favor of yet another midsize Canadian town, even if it does better at the gate, is still a huge loss
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Back to contraction.

Forbes is also on the contraction bandwagon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...e-contraction/

Unfortunately, trimming back player salaries from 57% of revenue to 50% won’t solve the fundamental problem. Neither will throwing a bit more of the New York Rangers’ or Montreal Canadiens’ money to the St. Louis Blues and Florida Panthers. That’s because the fundamental problem is this: the NHL has 30 teams when it should have 20 teams. Time to start chopping.

“You’ve got almost no centralized revenue to work with,” says Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who has written extensively about sports economics, about the NHL’s lack of a significant national television package. “There is probably no way to make the bottom of the league viable. Even if salaries were zero, some still couldn’t cover their other costs.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
This is absurd. Name the teams that can't cover nonsalary operating expenses.

Apparently being a Forbes columnist doesn't render you immune from having an idiotic opinion.
Okay Okay back up. Frankly Dojji you're premise is correct but the example is wrong. Atlanta is a bad sports town. Not a bad hockey town. That problem is bigger then the NHL. DC and Boston and SF are a better example all because those three are way more wealthy and other then DC have huge corporate presence, bigger then Atlanta. The league already has Carolina and Nashville. In fact, neither of those areas should have gotten teams before ATL but I digress. Contraction should be the last resort but you are under estimating how serious 2 lockouts in 8 years is, no matter the reasons. I said the same thing when the Canadian teams were in trouble

Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I think the logical fallacy is that a larger, US dominated game is beneficial. It most certainly is not. I wouldmuch rather the NHL stagnate at $3bn than become another Canadian free entity.
NHL is slowly going down that path and when the economy is good again the (western) Canadian teams will be trouble. Your mistake is assuming Toronto and Montreal care if there is teams out west or not.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:28 PM
  #407
KingsFan7824
Registered User
 
KingsFan7824's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I think the logical fallacy is that a larger, US dominated game is beneficial. It most certainly is not. I wouldmuch rather the NHL stagnate at $3bn than become another Canadian free entity.
You might. The players certainly wouldn't.

I'm neutral on contraction/relocation. If it happens, alright. If not, alright. But I'm not going to tell any fan, no matter how small the fan base, or how cheap the ticket, that they shouldn't have a team. Fans telling other fans that, it doesn't get a lot accomplished. Those things take care of themselves eventually, one way or the other.

KingsFan7824 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:30 PM
  #408
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingsFan7824 View Post
You might. The players certainly wouldn't.

I'm neutral on contraction/relocation. If it happens, alright. If not, alright. But I'm not going to tell any fan, no matter how small the fan base, or how cheap the ticket, that they shouldn't have a team. Fans telling other fans that, it doesn't get a lot accomplished. Those things take care of themselves eventually, one way or the other.
Agreed. 100% How do you always have the right answer

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:35 PM
  #409
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
I think that's a bit melodramatic. For starters there is a tendency to look at too short a sample size because of lot of teams go up and down over the course of a decade. Like the Sabres or Sens, some years they are in the red some years in the black. Some like the Lightning have really wild swings. Some of the teams hurting most, like the Islanders, are addressing things and have potential to get out of their funk.
Personally, I also believe that Florida despite its long term revenue shortage has good potential.
There are maybe 4 teams that consistently lose big money, the main one being the Yotes. The AZ sports market is horrible to begin with, so I dont think it's just a hockey thing, but it cant be denied that the Yotes are a major burden that hasnt much potential to get out of its funk. I also think most people agree that this issue can be tackled safely by relocation (move them to QC, move the Jets to the west conf, and there ya go).
Now you've taken care of the biggest burdens. At the same time overall revenue is expanding, so the other teams not losing that much or not losing it constantly are not as big an issue. Gives time to see how things like the Isles move to Brooklyn works out or if the Blue Jackets can have a season they arent awful before talking about further moves.

In the mean time this talk of contraction is ridiculous and melodramatic. The league is nowhere near hurting so bad that it needs even consider contraction.

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:46 PM
  #410
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
I think the logical fallacy is that a larger, US dominated game is beneficial. It most certainly is not. I wouldmuch rather the NHL stagnate at $3bn than become another Canadian free entity.
Speaking of logical fallacies, that's a nice false dichotomy you've presented.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:56 PM
  #411
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilanKraft View Post
Problem with expansion was more diluting the talent pool than having unprofitable teams in southern markets.

You look at NHL rosters now, the talent level is a joke.

Teams used to be stacked in the 90's.

Who wants to watch these bums play, since most of these teams have no talent they have to resort to other ways in winning games which equals boring to the non-hardcore fans.
Teams employed entirely lines of goons in the early 1990s, and entire lines of massive ECHL-level players in the late 1990s. The exciting years (1992-93 and 1993-94) came not as a result of stellar on-ice play, but because of a huge rules crackdown that led to a spike in power plays and a more free-flowing game.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh....php?t=1262829

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 01:58 PM
  #412
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
And that's exactly what Atlanta had. A mediocre team with some likeability, yet when it was time for one of the locals to step up and buy the team, they all walked away.

Seems to me the people writing the cheques in Atlanta feel differently about the prospects of having a team there.
Prospective buyers in Atlanta (of which there were over 20, and we're not talking about tire-kickers here) were given one of the following options:
1) Buy the Thrashers, Hawks, and operating rights to Philips Arena as a package deal, or
2) Buy the Thrashers for an obscenely inflated price, then be stuck with ASG as a landlord

ASG was willing to sell an anchor tenant in order to sell a team in a league going into a lockout to satisfy a pizza delivery boy who had no money. That's what the entire Atlanta saga comes down to.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 02:43 PM
  #413
braindead
Registered User
 
braindead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The cookie spoke
Country: Tibet
Posts: 2,820
vCash: 500
Actually, expansion is the necessary ingredient to prosper... maybe a new thread would be in order for that out-of-the-box thinking though.

braindead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 03:25 PM
  #414
Dojji*
Fight the Hate
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 16,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
Okay Okay back up. Frankly Dojji you're premise is correct but the example is wrong. Atlanta is a bad sports town. Not a bad hockey town. That problem is bigger then the NHL. DC and Boston and SF are a better example all because those three are way more wealthy and other then DC have huge corporate presence, bigger then Atlanta. The league already has Carolina and Nashville. In fact, neither of those areas should have gotten teams before ATL but I digress. Contraction should be the last resort but you are under estimating how serious 2 lockouts in 8 years is, no matter the reasons. I said the same thing when the Canadian teams were in trouble
You don't go to Atlanta because it's a sports town.

You go to Atlanta because it's a media town. If you can't capture the attention of the media nothing else you do will get this league out of the 4th spot of the big 4 -- except maybe to push it even lower. And you need teams in media-intense locations like Atlanta in order to get there from here. Literally every other league gets it, and literally every other league has a mediocre but present team in Atlanta right now (let's face it, the Braves are not the Braves of old either). They don't make money on the team, but the presence in Atlanta still makes them enough money to make up for that. Handily.

Quote:
NHL is slowly going down that path and when the economy is good again the (western) Canadian teams will be trouble. Your mistake is assuming Toronto and Montreal care if there is teams out west or not.
Your mistake is assuming that Toronto and Montreal matter to this conversation as more than 2 rich teams who happen to represent 2 of the current big markets of the sport.

Dojji* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:01 PM
  #415
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 18,398
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbcwpg View Post
Back to contraction.

Forbes is also on the contraction bandwagon.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanri...e-contraction/

Unfortunately, trimming back player salaries from 57% of revenue to 50% won’t solve the fundamental problem. Neither will throwing a bit more of the New York Rangers’ or Montreal Canadiens’ money to the St. Louis Blues and Florida Panthers. That’s because the fundamental problem is this: the NHL has 30 teams when it should have 20 teams. Time to start chopping.

“You’ve got almost no centralized revenue to work with,” says Roger Noll, a Stanford University economist who has written extensively about sports economics, about the NHL’s lack of a significant national television package. “There is probably no way to make the bottom of the league viable. Even if salaries were zero, some still couldn’t cover their other costs.”
Lost all credibility right there.

KINGS17 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:16 PM
  #416
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,537
vCash: 50
here is the thing, how do you decide who to contract. 6 years ago the hawks were the worst in attendence and now are near the top, the blues have the support, but due to problems they are near the bottom--there are about 20 teams I would contract before the blue

__________________
"If the Detroit Red Wings are defying gravity" by consistently contending without the benefit of high draft picks, "the Edmonton Oilers are defying lift.

Welcome to Edmonton Connor McDavid--the rest of you HA HA HA HA HA HA
jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:18 PM
  #417
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,537
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
You say this about Winnipeg:



And then say this?



As a Winnipegger, I do take that as disrespect because you are saying that my city is not good enough to be in the NHL. How else do you want me to take that? To me, that seems very hypocritical of you. This is the exact attitude from the US that I'm talking about: how it's all about the US now and screw Canada. Well, comments like this make me not want to see anymore teams in the US, especially the south.
let us see how the peg is after enduring the five seasons that the oiler fans had to put up with

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:19 PM
  #418
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 115,989
vCash: 625
The problem with the inevitability of evacuating from southern markets is the definition of the term. People have been saying it's been inevitable for eons, and as a result...they're still saying it.

__________________
Philadelphia's Real Alternative
(ynotradio.net)

Stop Feeding the Rumor-Monger

"I wonder if Norstrom has Forsberg's spleen mounted on his wall." - KINGS17

My 50 Favorite Albums of 2014 (sorry it's late)
GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 04:30 PM
  #419
Melrose Munch
Registered User
 
Melrose Munch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,035
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You don't go to Atlanta because it's a sports town.

You go to Atlanta because it's a media town. If you can't capture the attention of the media nothing else you do will get this league out of the 4th spot of the big 4 -- except maybe to push it even lower. And you need teams in media-intense locations like Atlanta in order to get there from here. Literally every other league gets it, and literally every other league has a mediocre but present team in Atlanta right now (let's face it, the Braves are not the Braves of old either). They don't make money on the team, but the presence in Atlanta still makes them enough money to make up for that. Handily.
You believe this only because Atlanta is see as the capital of the south. Which is fine. I think it's time try Houston.



Quote:
Your mistake is assuming that Toronto and Montreal matter to this conversation as more than 2 rich teams who happen to represent 2 of the current big markets of the sport.
I was talking to JS not you on that point.

Melrose Munch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 05:16 PM
  #420
Puckschmuck*
Doan Shall Be Boo'ed
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jumptheshark View Post
let us see how the peg is after enduring the five seasons that the oiler fans had to put up with
We will be fine. In terms of fan support, we are no different than Edmonton or Calgary.

Puckschmuck* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 05:43 PM
  #421
Actual Thought
Boy was I wrong!
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Of course! If you build a snowmobile dealer in Florida then the snowmobile dealers in Wisconsin should support your ill advised investment while you "compete for those dollars". It doesn't matter if your winning those dollars right now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
You're not going to pull out of big US markets to go to medium-sized Canadian ones if you're the NHL right now.

The NHL has got to make the jump to a national sport in the United States someway, somehow. That is non-optional for the long term health and relevancy of the league. You can't just sit there and sulk in your little geographic niche, dismissing 3/4 of the money in the United States as "not hockey money." It doesn't matter if you're not winning the competition for that money right now, YOU HAVE GOT to go out there and compete for it.

If hockey teams gave up every game they thought they had no chance of winning, they would be dismissed as soft, whiny little pansies. You really want the league to be thinking like that?

What they need to do is offer better support and quicker remediation of the kind of damage a bad owner or one who isn't up to the challenge of owning in a completely new market can run into. If they'd jerked whatsisname, Moyes, up earlier, maybe Phoenix wouldn't have been as badly screwed.

Actual Thought is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 05:56 PM
  #422
Confucius
Registered User
 
Confucius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by schminksbro View Post
Of course! If you build a snowmobile dealer in Florida then the snowmobile dealers in Wisconsin should support your ill advised investment while you "compete for those dollars". It doesn't matter if your winning those dollars right now...
Better yet, Apple should expand and build 25 new locations in northern Canada. Sell iphones for 25 bucks. They've expanded and generated more revenue. The rest of the Apple empire can just subsidize the 25 new locations that will be hemorrhaging money. Aterall they did increase revenue (Surely the 25 new locales sold some iphones for 25 bucks apiece) and expanded their brand.

Confucius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:17 PM
  #423
aqib
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,990
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melrose Munch View Post
You believe this only because Atlanta is see as the capital of the south. Which is fine. I think it's time try Houston.
There are 3 slots in Canada to be filled first. Let Houston fight it out with Seattle for the top US slot.

aqib is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:26 PM
  #424
jumptheshark
McDavid Headquarters
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: EVIL EMPIRE
Country: United Nations
Posts: 60,537
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckschmuck View Post
We will be fine. In terms of fan support, we are no different than Edmonton or Calgary.
i remember playoff games against the oilers back in the day not being sold out.

jumptheshark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-13-2012, 06:26 PM
  #425
Jossipov
Patty's Better
 
Jossipov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Arlington, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 3,560
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stix and Stones View Post
Better yet, Apple should expand and build 25 new locations in northern Canada. Sell iphones for 25 bucks. They've expanded and generated more revenue. The rest of the Apple empire can just subsidize the 25 new locations that will be hemorrhaging money. Aterall they did increase revenue (Surely the 25 new locales sold some iphones for 25 bucks apiece) and expanded their brand.
Not for nothing, but that is (minus the hyperbole) how companies became major international corporations. Companies, like apple, may subsidize stores in certain locations in order to keep a footprint in that market, hoping for a long term return on investment by expanding the brand.

Jossipov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.